Damage to Israel-Turkey relations feared

Foreign Ministry sends calming messages to Ankara following publication on contracts won by Israeli companies to train Kurdish security forces in northern Iraq, claiming companies acted on their own initiative

<snip>

"Last week's publication by Israel's leading newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth on Israeli companies winning contracts with the Kurdish government to train and equip Kurdish security forces in northern Iraq has caused tension in the relations between Israel and Turkey, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Sunday.

The affair received widespread coverage on the website of
Turkey's popular newspaper Zaman, which reported that the new information revealed has caused tension between the two countries.

Foreign Ministry officials, aware of the fact that they were dealing with a very complex and sensitive issue, hastened to send calming messages to Turkey over the weekend.

The main message conveyed by the ministry was that the Israeli companies acted on their own initiative and that the official State of Israel does not operate in the discussed areas."


more

The breakup of its Muslim neigbors has long been desired by some in Israel. This is a step in that direction.

want to be independent

Anybody with a lick of intelligence knew the Israeli's were operating in Kurdish area long ago..

Our corporate-owned "free press" assures that.

Turkey has been adament all along that they will not tolerate an independent Kurdish state on their border, especially one sitting on vast oil wealth. If Turkey finds itself embroiled in a costly war with Israeli trained and armed Kurds, (newly independent thanks to the Americans) it's going to sit badly with the turkish population. That's all the opening the Islamic fundamentalist parties in Turkey will need to take control of the government. Turkey controlled by religous fundamentalists is not in the best interests of Israel, the US, or Europe.

destablize the ME. The oil resources is one reason why Saddam did not want the Kurds to become an independent state. It would have taken too much wealth from the greater Iraq. Over the past 3 decades the Kurds have shifted between villians and victims. Kurdish factions have killed each other at alarming rates and they are known to have committed atrocities against other Iraqis, killing thousands. Because the US had and has a vested interest in toppling Saddam, the Kurds were always pumped as victims under Saddam's rule. Nevermind that they were threatening to overthrow the Iraqi government and attempted assassinations of Iraqi officials. Now the chickens are coming home to roost as the Kurds will also become a thorn in the US side. Check out their history and you will find that there former ties with Israel that the Turks are well aware of. Only the uninformed or ill-informed Americans don't know the complexities of the ME situation. For most Americans is just a simple biblical story that makes them support Israel at their own expense.

do you support their desire for independence and a national identity or do international politics take precedent.

I would not give them power over national resources. The oil should belong to Iraq.

If Texans decided they wanted to an independent nation, what do you think this government would do? The demographics of Texas make it almost possible to be an independent nation.

what if the Shites say OK? And if the Turks decide to exterminate the Kurds, what is the world's proper reponse?

That's right. 2100 Americans died for that oil - and "The oil should belong to Iraq." so that we can steal it to reimburse us for toppling Saddam.

Now, that is a classic Neocon-PNAC - Halliburton - Big Oil argument.

It's ours --> We stole it fair and square.

As to Texas being an independent nation - not a bad idea.

Who do people think created Iraq?

British and French gentlemen in striped pants, wing collars and stovepipe hats. Iraq didn't exist before 1916, and it won't make it to its 90th birthday.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it is all about cheap gasoline for their 8 mile per gallon gas guzzling SUV's which they use to commute to and from gated exurban MacMansions.

See , and ,

And - if Israel disappeared tomorrow - into the Mediterranean or back to Russia () would not make things better or worse for the US or the American motorist, or for the American soldier in Iraq.

should never have gotten into in the first place.

(Surprise! You once again thought you could read minds and failed miserably at it!)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

#1? That doesn't make sense. They've only been living in this region for thousands of years.

They're a thorn in OUR sides???? Hello?

for the construction of a new airport in the Kurdish area, and even said that the Kurds considered that the first step toward independence. That is a very bad sign.

Most cities of any decent size anywhere around the world want an airport

This might have been mentioned, I've only partially read through this thread...

Stemming from the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey, under the New Turks, enshrined into their constitution a rather..."rigorous" guard against the potential rise of a theocratic government.

The Turkish armed forces are constitutionally allowed to overthrow any Turkish civilian government that too closely pursues a religious agenda...and it's already taken place several times in the last century.

vis a vis Israel and the Kurds, it isn't an unknown secret that Israel provided Iraqi Kurds with arms and material support during their uprising in the 1970's.

I'm sure the parties involved will be able to "overlook" this incident.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5513397

This is a potentially very dangerous situation for US interests in the area, imho.

peoples in the Middle East. Why SHOULDN'T they have a place to call their own? Do you really know the situation of ethnic and religious minorities in this region?

I'll give you a clue: The Year of the Sword. Look it up, it'll provide maybe a LITTLE insight.

Why don't they have a country of their own? Same difference! You can make a justification for balkanization in many instances, but past a certain point, you don't really help the situation. I'm not saying that the Kurds shouldn't have some degree of atonomy (kind of like we have with states here), but a separate country would probably cause more problems than it would solve. Then you also have the Turkomens, etc. that have significant numbers living within the Kurdish part of Iraq that are being arrested, etc. by Kurds trying to get a majority in places like Mosul to seize control of the oil there. Should the Turkomens also have their own country within this new Kurdish country? Then you can keep looking at more minorities, etc. until you get to families, and then you have folks like Hatfields and McCoy's wanting their own countries. It really isn't something that's that simple. It's a quite complex situation.

is necessarily imposing a western model federal government on a nation that was created by the Brits and the French out of the carcass of the Ottoman Empire, without any regard to ethnic, tribal or religious considerations. Iraq is a 20th century construct. It may well prove impossible to govern via Shi'a theocracy.

Meanwhile, clashes between Kurds and Turks have been going on for decades. They've been quite violent. The fate of the Kurds in Iraq is well known. In Iran, they seem to be more integrated into that very complex society, at least I haven't heard of open violence.

Balkanization, if it results in self-determination for people who would otherwise be oppressed, isn't a bad solution - unless of course we no longer believe in democracy and self-determination.

occur if the Kurds were to press for independence now, as a result of our meddling in the region. We would be in the stupid position of having caused a war between two allies, all because we got lied into a war that we should never have undertaken in the first place. My position has nothing to do with the Kurds desire for independence per se. (Not that will stop certain posters, I realize, from portraying my position as anti-Kurd, or anti-self-determination-for-ethnic-peoples, or whatever nonsense will be invented, I realize.)

I am concerned about the effect of this on AMERICAN interests, and by that I mean what I would define as our real interests, namely, being able to recover from the effects of this stupid war without any more damage being done. I would further define our interests as avoiding being percieved (in reality or otherwise) as the ones who were responsible for what would certainly be a multi-nation conflagration, as Kurds in all the neighboring countries also rise up. Want another war, do you? Well, I don't.

I feel a great deal of personal empathy for the Kurdish aspirations and dilemma. Their plight is a result of a previous adventure in meddling by the West, and I sincerely hope that it can be resolved at some point peacefully. I had a good friend who was Kurdish when I was at the university (so you need not lecture me about the Kurds). I just do not want the US to be the cause of the huge war that would happen if the Kurds made their move now. It would only further damage our reputation and standing in the world, if such a thing is possible, given what has happened since GWB took office.

(Not that will stop certain posters, I realize, from portraying my position as anti-Kurd, or anti-self-determination-for-ethnic-peoples, or whatever nonsense will be invented, I realize.)

so how do you determine which "ethnic people" get to "fight" for their self determination and cause wars for their independence and which ones dont?

so for some ethnic peoples your are for self determination and others you arent?...because of amercian strategic interests?

perhaps i misunderstood your previous posts....so as i understand it your for palestenian independence because it best serves american interests....in which case an argument of "just or fair" etc is actually quite irrelevant.

you should have mentioned this stance quite earlier.....it would have cleared up quite a few things (somehow it sounds more 'conservative rather than the "liberal progressive"...or perhaps its just repolitics with the realization of limited resources and its implications.

....so much for "fair and just"...

the existence of the US by MILLENIA.

It is good that you're concerned about about our standing in the world. However I suggest taking a little longer view of the situation. Stress between Turks and Kurds and Arabs and Kurds, even tribal stress in Iran, are of long standing and the war in Iraq did NOT start them.

what I am saying does not have to do with the Kurdish desires for independence, which I do have empathy for, but has to do with the damage that this will do to US interests in the world. And my desire that we are able to END the war. Do you want it to go on forever? Because a Kurdish uprising, right now, would certainly make the war last longer. Or don't you see that?

Are you saying that the needs of the Kurds are more important that the needs of your own country? That appears to be your position.

It is the fault of the Bush administration for getting us into this mess in the first place, true, but that doesn't mean we should WISH for further damage to the US, imho. I am not advocating either, if you would be honest here, any further damage being done to the Kurds, just that the status quo be maintained until the US can get outta there.

now why cant we apply that to the palestenains?....you empathise with them, but the creation of a palestenain state at this time will cause an endless war?

whats the difference between the palestenains desire for self determination and the kurds?

justifies the violence of the I/P conflict?

Answer that and then I will again re-state my views on the Kurdish situation (for what, the 100th time?), which you are mistakenly confusing as being strictly analogous to the I/P conflict.

But, if the only issue really were a "self-determination" one, then it appears to me you have painted yourself into a box, because why do you support it for the Kurds, but not Pals? And what I mean is this: why not a Palestinian state and total end to the occupation right now, irregardless of any other concern that Israel might have (since that is absurdity of what your arguments are trying to place on me.)

(Since we are "turning around" things that people say with such great regularity at this point, why should I not do the same?)

dystopias, each of us a state unto theirselves. But of course that is ignorant twaddle, humans live in groups, and from time immemorial those groups have fought. Sometimes they fight over things that matter (food, oil, gold, women), but mostly they fight over imaginary twaddle
like religion and nationalism and economic dogma. It is obvious that were we all to pull together, we could ALL be much richer, but the logic of that doesn't seem to appeal to people wrapped up in their little disputes with their neighbors.

I personally don't see any easy solutions. People like their dogmas, and for the most part refuse to admit they are dogmas, and they won't give them up.

I was making the point that self-determination was not the only valid criteria upon which we should decide to encourage/not encourage the Kurdish independence movement. I do not want further bloodshed, and particularly bloodshed for which the US could quite rightly be held responsible, as a result of our stupid invasion. To be absolutely clear: I agree that "self-determination" is not the only issue of importance; that was precisely my point. I believe that each situation is unique, and must be judged based on the unique circumstances which comprise it.

Subsequent to the first time I made that point, a variety of people had been trying to paint me as against the Kurdish people. I'm hoping you did not read my previous post in that light. Sometimes the subject line seems to say one thing, and the message something else. LOL

Self determination is a thorny issue. You are correct that to advocate the self-determination of (some) Jews at the expense of the self-determination of the Arabs who happened to live where the said Jews wanted to determine themselves is, ummm, logically inconsistent. That has always seemed to me to be the root flaw in the present incarnation of the Zionist project, it's colonial nature and the intent to impose it by violence.

I agree that the Kurds have a better right than anybody to self-determine, they are an ancient people, and yet it will fragment Iraq, and that will have consequences, possibly violent ones, that may well be VERY bad for the Kurdish people too. But I dunno if you can hold back history at this point. These things aren't generally reversable.

The larger issue with "self-determination" revolves around the pragmatic aspects of it. In principle, every people should be free right? And self-governing, and so on. But who decides which candidates are "a people" with that right, and which are not? Indonesia didn't want to admit that E. Timorese were a people, invaded, and fought a nasty decades long war over it. A similar story is going on now in Western Sahara. There is the IRA in Ireland, the ETA in Spain (another ancient people, the Basque), and so on. There are MANY cases. So it seems to me that, while I like the idea, unless you have a procedure, a lawful procedure, and an enforcement mechanism to police the application of the procedure, then it doesn't get you much to accept the principle.

So, for now, I think we would do better to work on learning to live together in peace, rather than trying to set up a manifold of ethnic mono-cultures. The one thing that IS clear is that when you get one of these ethnic/religious conflicts going it gets REALLY ugly and everybody pays, and the anticipated pure utopia that each side claims to be working for never pans out in the end. So maybe we should shit-can all those sorts of fantasies and try to be more realistic and tolerant.

Edit: PS, I realize that it's completely unrealistic for me to expect that, but so is expecting "self-determination" of peoples to pan out, and on the whole, I think my idea is better.

i accept that life isnt fair....some get what they want some dont.

If i recall correctly (and we can find your post)...you stated clearly that you "are a democrate" and dont accept the "life isnt fair" arguement.

if so....how do you explain your position to the kurds? ..in light of your posistion with the palestenians?


________________
your response to my "life isnt fair argument:
Your mileage may differ. Of course we will never achieve a perfect equality, but that does not mean we should accept inequality, ......

Yet my question was still not answered. Are you saying that it is reasonable, in the case of the I/P conflict, to throw international law, moral justice and human rights out the window, because they are all examples of that silly and anachronistic concept of "fairness"?

Note the qualifier: in the case of the I/P conflict...which as i understand it, means in other conflicts (kurds) its perfectly ok to throw out moral justice.....

interesting view point...i would define it as "not being fair to the kurds"....how do you define it?

<snip>During his visit to the U.S. capital officially as "president of Iraq's regional government of Kurdistan" in late October, Barzani did not conceal that an independent state was a long-time Kurdish dream but admitted it was not a realistic pursuit at this time. (emphasis mine) <unsnip>
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=29567

So, are you saying you know better than Barzai what is good for the Kurds?

And really, pelsar, you don't seem to be understanding the things I'm saying at all. Maybe that's why you keep asking me the same questions over and over. I can't keep explaining, only to have my responses ignored, yet then the same questions are asked in a different thread. Re-read some of my posts: the answers you seek are there.

what responses am i ignoring?.....but i believe your not explaining to me.....i've read your posts and they seem to be this:

you dont accept "life isnt fair" for the palestenians...but for the kurds who want independence...they dont get it because of "global politics" (i believe some kurds might interpret that as being "unfair"

what part dont i understand?

Barzai may feel now is not the time but....

Concurrent with the Iraqi National Elections, 98 percent of the population living in Southern Kurdistan voted to form an independent state. This resolve is also shared by an overwhelming majority of Kurds in Iranian, Syrian and Turkish occupied Kurdistan as well as Kurds in Diaspora who are determined to make statehood a reality, not only for Southern Kurdistan but also for the other parts of their divided homeland.


http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2005/9/independentstate357.htm

_______________

please explain to me, perhaps in simple english the difference between palestenian asperations and the kurds...and i guess hows its "fair" to the kurds, since you dont accept the "no fair arguement)

a typical elitislt leftest viewpoint from someone who already has a stable established culture......

rather than trying to set up a manifold of ethnic mono-cultures., well thats "very big of you" to tell so many other peoples that their own self-determination is too late, they missed the boat...and they have to blend in now with their neighbors culture.

so does that mean your against the palestenians for their self determination or against the jews for theirs?

the jews should forever wander the globe being subject to various forms of anti semitism that creeps up from time to time in various countries....or the palestenains should have learned to mesh in with their fellow arabs in the neighboring countries.....

which one gets to supress their culture and which one gets self determination?..its mutally exclusive....you get to pick, no "peace on earth and kumbaya stuff...)....this is called living in the real world, tough choices with only bad options.....

wordie made his clear about the kurds: his attitude? well kurdish independence wil hurt his culture (america) and its interests...and his culture has the power to stop them...so "tough shit kurds" you dont get your self determination, lifes not fair (oops, that was my editorial edition)..how about, life is about power politics, and established cultures not being liberal in the application of their own interests?

(which is precisly what you wrote about-using more flowerly words)

The notion that the USA is a stable established culture is laughable, in my opinion, and the USA is hardly a monoculture. Imigrant bashing is a favored sport here, always has been. We won't even mention race.

It probably pointless to try, however: I'm not saying it's too late, I'm saying it is and always has been a stupid idea, gets lots of people killed, and it never works out, or not for long anyway. Every two-bit tin-pot tyrant in history was out to set up some dipshit utopia filled with nothing but people just like him ...

the US is far more stable than most of the countries in the world....many are failed states or nearly failing. It a very complex fusion of multiple cultures that in many ways is succseful and has failed in others, yet the overal scorecard is positive

your "utopia" ignores the hundreds of attempts to create such societies..and every single one of them have some form of "identity"....expand that identity a bit and soon you have a national identity...you should do some reading about liberalism and the attempts at "utopia societies"....most dont get past 2-3 generations....and those that do many times kick out those that dont fit.

the view that national identities are "not needed" is found only amongst the educated elite who have established identites....more often than not in western countries...take your idea to the palestenains, nigerians, etc and you wont get very far.

just dont be so ethnocentric as if your ideals are universal, they're not. They may be right, they may be the way to go..but the reactions to it will be violent by many groups.

Considering where you live and where I live.

i dont understand....as far as my upbringing goes...just for the record, i'm a mix of middleclass educated family that has also worked my whole life and through grad school.

so i am definitly of the elitist material (dad and brother have Ph.Ds) and most of us have grad degress...and i've also worked in getting those degrees in quite a few less than glamorous jobs (my "favorite" being in the morgue in a hospital-grave yard shift)....

so am an "elitist" at the sametime feel quite a home in a "workers bar" downtown anywhere....

but i am also very aware of the need for ones identity, be it racial, religious or non religious going all the way to ones national identity.....and as far as I know, its always the person in the secure society that screams " we dont need our national identity"...all we need is "love"...etc.

well the person in the less secure society, tends to disagree, many time violently.

btw as far as your situation...i confess i dont really know.

and who thinks all we need is love. I thought
that was obvious. Shall I hum a few bars of
"It's a small world after all"?

there are other societies out there, that have a very different value system than yours...and they believe they are 100% right and you are wrong...Now I personally i think some of their offshoots would be best removed from this earth...but until that happens we have to deal with them realistically....and understand that when dealing with them, we have to use their language.....and understand whats important to them may mean didldly squat to you.....until they learned the superiority of the western value system.

to find both this:
...so perhaps its time not to be so ethnocentric?

...and the comments about forcing on another ethnic group the learning of the superiority of the western value system.

...in the same paragraph. What I had thought were communication difficulties are in reality simple failures of logic and internal contradictions.


Note that I am interested in debating neither ethnocentrism, nor the western value system, nor the value of imposing anyone's values on any place on earth, but I do think that to accuse someone of ethnocentrism, and then, in the same paragraph, fantasize about imposing the learning of "the superiority of the western value system," upon another culture/ethnic group is just plain silly.

wheresas i recognize other cultures understand they have different values....i make "no bones about it" as to the fact that some cultures haves customs that are not compatible (honor killings, forcing women to wear potatoe sacks) with mine. I also believe mine, the western culture is superior with its civil rights etc...but it doesnt mean I ignore the language of the "other cultures" when it comes to "relating to it. I dont expect them to simple "accept mine as being better, quite the contrary, i expect them to believe, as they do, that theirs is better.

btw...i'm still waiting for the explanation on the comparison between "not accepting "its not fair" vis a vis the palestenains and accepting it in terms of the kurds self determination....i'm not looking for an explanation as to "why its not the time or that it might cause a war (like the palestenians are in the middle of), but how you can accept it, given your own explanations to me.

it was in my post #35, in which I asked you how you intend to apply these rules you wish to impose on the Kurdish conflict to the I/P one.

...if the only issue really were a "self-determination" one, then it appears to me you have painted yourself into a box, because why do you support it for the Kurds, but not Pals? And what I mean is this: why not a Palestinian state and total end to the occupation right now, irregardless of any other concern that Israel might have (since that is absurdity of what your arguments are trying to place on me.)

Even if you don't specifically answer my question, #35 will serve as my reply, if only on a rhetorical level.

unlike you i dont believe in "fairness" in global politics...and that is my question to you..as you stated so CLEARLY that you dont accept that explantion that life is not fair.

I actually dont believe the kurds should get independance due to the global repucussions, nor do i believe the palestenians should get it until the show that they can create a society that is democratic and stable...but then i dont believe in fairness....you do.

so I am still not clear as to how you shall explain to the kurds, as someone who doesnt accept "life not being fair".

all I'm requesting is a very straight and simple answer...how do explain the apparant contradiction in your views:
I'll try to make it as clear as i can:

the jews returned, palestenains/arabs made some wrong moves and got screwed....i say they have to live with it, face reality and move on...you say they dont have to accept that "life is not fair".

the kurds want independance, self-determination just as much as the palestenians and in fact have a much longer culture and you say: no way, not now, my countries interest say its not good for us...i.e. l support the palestenains and not you...life isnt fair...

strikes me as a contradiction in your views...how is it not?

that there is a DU rule against bringing arguments from one thread into another thread, or following people from one thread to another.

Here's what it says:
Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

It also says this:
You are permitted to post polite behavioral corrections to other members of the message board, in direct response to specific instances of incivility, provided that your comments are narrowly focused on the behavior.

So, pelsar, that's what I'm doing here. I discussed the "fairness" issue with you at great length in a completely differnt thread. We could not see eye to eye, and you misconstrued what I said. Now, you are continuing to approach me in different threads, harkening back to that previous discussion. Please stop.

I don't think you are breaking the rules on purpose. I think you are probably unaware of this rule. But I would appreciate it if you would respect my right not to continue to discuss the issue from the other thread and drop it. Thank you.

and yes i was unaware of the rule.....but i dont believe i misconstrued what you wrote, at least not intentionally...i was (am stll) trying ot understand a single value/principle point placed into two different environments (kurd/palestenain) with coming out with two contrasting views for each environment (self determinaton for one, and not for the other)..

still if you wish me to drop it....I will.

...since you were kind enough to offer to drop it, I'll say just one more thing to try to explain. I know you, and many others here, don't agree, but here it is: in an immediate sense, I see a drive for self-determination - at this time, right now - for the Kurds as leading to an incredible bloodbath, as the other concerned countries become involved in a much-expanded war in the region. On the other hand, at this point I see self-determination for the Palestinians as leading to a reduction in bloodshed, as the hope for the future created in the hearts of the Pals would strenghten the moderates hand in reducing violence.

I am well aware that you don't agree with that last point, and feel the Pals aren't ready. Further discussion isn't going to change your mind on that issue; nor my belief that in the case of the Pals, it is more likely to lead to less violence than more. Whether or not you agree with me, can you see the distinction I make between the two cases? They are not the same; even though both deal with issues of self-determination, the other circumstances are so profoundly different that different conclusions can be reached.

And now that I've answered your question (or at least I was willing to take a stab at it), will you do me the same courtesy and answer, or at least think about, the question I posed to you earlier, in my response #35? I was asking about the apparent contradiction in your own position, where you call for immediate self-determination for the Kurds, but expect the Pals to continue to wait, and meet endless new criteria before they are worthy to achieve self-determination. (OK, so that last part about the criteria is how I see it; you are unlikely to view it that way, but if you could at least give a stab at answering question #35 anyway...)

we partially agree...my point that the kurds should have self determination now was an attempt to point out the contradiction in your posistion..which by the way you cleared up....I too dont believe the kurds should have their own state now....i dont know about the future as they are very wide spread across several countries and the repercussions would be extensive.

perhaps unlike you (or perhaps not), i dont believe its practical for all "peoples to get their "own land".....the mosiac would never end, hence i go back to my "life isnt fair" routine.

as far as the palestenains go: picture this scenario: An agreement is reached, the PA, a pseudo democracy/dictatorship (like egypt?) takes control.....dictatorships require an outside enemy to justify their harsh measures..that means attacks on israel continues...and the reprisals (or perhaps the boss can reign in the various jihadnikim). The PA now being a state can import heavy weapons...that means israels response will be even heavier...the result is not just loss of life, but a failed state. Perhaps the Hamas comes to the rescue..now we have a fanatical religious state (mini iran), that continues the threats and attackes upon israel.

The point being a "failed palesteanian state" will not do the palestenians any good, in fact it will make their lives even more miserable than it is now. Failed govts treat their citizens far worse than any foreign occupier would...Plus once they have a state, it will be "hands off" for the UN.

More so, the world and all its "caring people" will no longer care about the palestenains...as it will be an internal matter. The question is this:

whats more important removing the occupation or working to provide the palestenians with a better chance for a better future, while removing the occupation?

removing the occupation immediatly may make matters worse, looking at Gaza does not inspires confidence...and they wont get a second chance (see the taliban, saudi arabia or iran for examples....), once in place a failed or fanatical govt is difficult to remove

There is talk about rebuilding an old pipeline from northwestern Iraq to Israel. That pipeline could also be made large enough to accommodate much or all of the oil expected to flow out of the Kirkuk fields, which could then be shipped out of Israel. That would bypass the Turkish port of Ceyhan.

It is also possible that if the U.S. took Syria, like the neocons would like, then some of the Kirkuk oil would flow through the pipelines in Syria to ports on the Mediterranean. In that case, a significant amount of oil would avoid the Persian Gulf and Moslem Turkey. There is also a pipeline running from the Basra fields north to the Kirkuk-Syria pipeline. If it could be repaired and defended, then more Iraqi and perhaps Kuwaiti oil could be moved through the Med not the Persian Gulf.

If Iraqi oil was used only by Israel, Syria and the U.S., and Isreali oil supplies from Nigeria be diverted to the U.S., then perhaps the U.S. could withstand a blockade of the Persian Gulf during a war on Iran. Nasty business.

the Sinai, and traded all of it for a peace agreement.

As far as building pipelines is concerned, this is actually logical, considering the fact that we currently pump environmentally toxic, volatile and dangerous petroleum into floating environmental disasters, which we then route all the way around Africa to reach Europe, leaving oil slicks all over the place.

Hello? DOES THIS MAKE ANY DAMN SENSE WHATSOEVER?

In any case, pipeline projects bringing Central Asian oil south through India and West, from the Caspian, are already underway. The world's remaining oil resources will be highly prized and they WILL be exploited, one way or another.

The only rational, long term solution to this situation is ALTERNATIVE FUELS.

Meanwhile, that still leaves the question of self-determination, empowerment and equal rights for minorities. I find it interesting that many posters on a progressive website, seem to prefer not to think about this, referring to the Kurds, for example, as Thorns in The Side.